With the rapid rise of artificial intelligence tools, it’s understandable that some employers might consider scaling back certain functions, like human resources, and leaning more heavily on readily available AI options. A word to the wise: that may not be the best idea.
Just this past week, an insurance company sued OpenAI for the unauthorized practice of law, alleging that it provided legal advice to a party in a lawsuit. Not only was the advice allegedly improper, it was apparently wrong, leading the individual to file more than 40 frivolous motions. The result? Significant time and expense for the opposing party, and yet another (alleged) hit to already‑burdened court dockets.
Reuters has a good summary of the case here.
In this situation, the individual likely believed she was getting solid guidance and could navigate complex legal procedures on her own. Instead, it made everything dramatically worse. It’s a good reminder not to put all of your eggs in the AI basket.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: AI can be a great starting point. It can create an excellent foundation or serve as a useful building block. It is not, however, a substitute for professional judgment, especially when circumstances are nuanced, fact‑specific, or evolving. Functions like HR and legal services still need a “human in the loop” to make sure the outcome fits the situation and the risks are properly understood.With the rapid rise of artificial intelligence tools, it’s understandable that some employers might consider scaling back certain functions, like human resources, and leaning more heavily on readily available AI options. A word to the wise: that may not be the best idea.
Just this past week, an insurance company sued OpenAI for the unauthorized practice of law, alleging that it provided legal advice to a party in a lawsuit. Not only was the advice allegedly improper, it was apparently wrong, leading the individual to file more than 40 frivolous motions. The result? Significant time and expense for the opposing party, and yet another (alleged) hit to already‑burdened court dockets.
Reuters has a good summary of the case here.
In this situation, the individual likely believed she was getting solid guidance and could navigate complex legal procedures on her own. Instead, it made everything dramatically worse. It’s a good reminder not to put all of your eggs in the AI basket.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: AI can be a great starting point. It can create an excellent foundation or serve as a useful building block. It is not, however, a substitute for professional judgment, especially when circumstances are nuanced, fact‑specific, or evolving. Functions like HR and legal services still need a “human in the loop” to make sure the outcome fits the situation and the risks are properly understood.
